Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP) – For Parent

Dr. Mohammed Looti

Child Assessment Educational Psychology Family Studies Psychometrics

Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP) – For Parent

The Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version (ESSP-P) is an ecologically grounded psychometric tool measuring family, school, and neighborhood risk and protective factors shaping elementary student success.

Dr. Mohammed Looti An academic and researcher specialized in

PUBLISHED September 24, 2026

Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 24, 2026

Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 24, 2026

Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim PhD in Psychology

Faculty Member • University of Kerbala

Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Abstract

The Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version (ESSP-P), also referenced within the School Success Profile suite as the ESSP for Families, is an extensive, multidimensional, ecologically grounded assessment instrument designed to evaluate the contextual risk and protective factors that influence the social, emotional, behavioral, and academic performance of children in elementary school (grades 3 through 5). Developed by Natasha K. Bowen, Gary L. Bowen, and colleagues at the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the ESSP-P operationalizes Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and the risk and resilience paradigm. The parent protocol comprises 54 multi-part core items spanning four primary ecological domains: Demographics and Household Context, Neighborhood Environment (neighborhood safety, collective efficacy, peer models, drug problems, and violent events), School Environment and Parent-School Engagement (school climate, teacher caring, communication, perceived parental influence, and barrier navigation), and Home Environment and Child Behavioral Functioning (parental academic socialization, home routines, parental warmth, family cohesion, disciplinary strategies, sibling relations, child social skills, self-regulation, peer interactions, and physical aggression). Depending on the subscale, response modalities include binary checklists, Likert-type frequency scales (e.g., Never to Always), agreement scales (e.g., Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), behavioral frequency ratings (e.g., Never to Very Often), and categorical demographic indicators. Psychometric investigations, including confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted on ethnically and socioeconomically diverse samples, have demonstrated robust construct validity, high internal consistency across subscales (α ranging from .70 to .93), strong convergent validity with established behavioral and family functioning inventories (e.g., the Child Behavior Checklist and the Social Skills Rating System), and longitudinal predictive utility for standardized academic achievement and classroom behavioral adjustment.

Keywords

Elementary School Success Profile, ESSP-P, ecological assessment, parent-report questionnaire, academic socialization, collective efficacy, child social competence, risk and resilience, psychometrics, school social work, home-school partnership, confirmatory factor analysis

Authors

The Elementary School Success Profile instrument suite was conceptualized, designed, and psychometrically validated by a specialized team of social work researchers, psychometricians, and educational interventionists affiliated with the Jordan Institute for Families in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Natasha K. Bowen, Ph.D., MSW — Principal Developer of the ESSP. Professor, College of Social Work, The Ohio State University (formerly Associate Professor, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Dr. Bowen specializes in psychometric scale development, structural equation modeling, school-based socio-ecological assessment, and targeted interventions for at-risk youth.
Gary L. Bowen, Ph.D., ACSW — Kenan Distinguished Professor and former Dean, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Internationally recognized scholar on the School Success Profile (SSP), military families, social environmental influences on youth development, and community capacity.
Jack M. Richman, Ph.D., MSW — Former Dean and Professor Emeritus, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Co-architect of the original School Success Profile assessment system, focusing on adolescent coping, social support networks, and school-based clinical social work.
Michael E. Woolley, Ph.D., MSW — Associate Professor, University of Maryland School of Social Work. Expert in school social work, classroom environment metrics, and psychometric validation of youth- and parent-report instruments.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version is to provide a comprehensive, multi-systemic portrait of the environmental assets and risks surrounding an elementary school student, as perceived and reported by the child’s primary caregiver. While traditional psychoeducational and clinical assessments focus predominantly on intra-individual deficits, cognitive dysfunctions, or psychiatric pathology, the ESSP-P adopts a positive youth development and ecological risk-and-protection framework. It serves both clinical-diagnostic and empirical research functions by measuring actionable targets across the child’s microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem.

In applied educational and mental health settings, school social workers, school psychologists, counselors, and multidisciplinary intervention teams utilize the ESSP-P to guide data-driven decision-making within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks. Specifically, the profile enables practitioners to:

Identify specific ecological vulnerabilities that may impede academic engagement, such as chronic neighborhood exposure to crime, severe family financial strain, traumatic bereavement, inconsistent home disciplinary practices, or weak home-school communication channels.
Uncover existing protective factors and latent assets—such as high neighborhood collective efficacy, robust family cohesion, frequent parental academic encouragement, and pro-social peer relationships—that can be mobilized during intervention planning.
Bridge the informational divide between school personnel and home contexts, providing educators with objective insights into family strengths and the systemic barriers (e.g., rigid work schedules, transportation deficits) that constrain conventional parental school involvement.
Evaluate the longitudinal efficacy of school-wide, targeted small-group, or individualized family-support interventions by tracking changes in parenting practices, child behavioral self-regulation, and home learning routines over time.

In academic research, the ESSP-P functions as an empirically rigorous measurement tool for developmental psychopathology, family sociology, and school social work investigations. It allows researchers to model the complex mediation and moderation pathways through which neighborhood disadvantage, parental educational expectations, intergenerational closure, and home social behavior collectively shape elementary school outcomes.

Psychological Construct

The ESSP-P operationalizes a multidimensional lattice of psychological, social, and behavioral constructs. Rather than yielding a single unitary score, the instrument measures discrete, validated latent dimensions distributed across four core ecological spheres:

1. Neighborhood Contextual Constructs

Neighborhood Collective Efficacy and Cohesion: Measures caregiver perceptions of mutual trust, shared social expectations, and the willingness of local adults to intervene for the common good and supervise local children (e.g., adults looking out for one another, working together to improve the community, and supervising child safety).
Neighborhood Risk and Exposure to Violence: Assesses chronic environmental stressors, including direct witness to or awareness of illicit drug trade, muggings, break-ins, shootings, gang conflicts, and domestic abuse within the immediate residential area.
Neighborhood Youth Norms / Peer Models: Captures the behavioral models presented by older adolescents in the community, differentiating between positive developmental models (academic attainment, employment, college aspirations) and deviance-prone models (gang affiliation, substance abuse, delinquency, weapons carrying).

2. Home-School Connection Constructs

Parental Perceptions of Teacher and School Support: Reflects the caregiver’s subjective appraisal of teacher empathy, academic expectations, and responsiveness to student progress or behavioral concerns.
Parental Self-Efficacy and Perceived Influence: Measures the parent’s belief in their collective agency to impact educational environments and foster constructive school change.
School Involvement Barriers: Evaluates structural constraints—predominantly work schedule inflexibility, logistical barriers, and transportation deficits—that restrict direct school presence.
Active School Participation: Quantifies overt engagement behaviors, such as conference attendance, classroom volunteering, PTA involvement, and direct communication with instructional staff.

3. Home Learning and Family Dynamics Constructs

Parental Academic Socialization and Home Learning Routines: Measures proactive home behaviors that support schooling, such as discussing daily classroom learning, supervising and providing resources for homework, rewarding effort, promoting non-school reading, and enforcing structural boundaries on media consumption.
Parental Warmth and Positive Reinforcement: Gauges explicit emotional responsiveness, verbal affection, encouragement, and shared positive affect between caregiver and child.
Family Cohesion and Problem Solving: Measures expressive emotional bonding, mutual support under strain, communicative openness, and collaborative conflict resolution within the household.
Parenting Discipline Strategies: Evaluates the consistency, emotional regulation, and structure of disciplinary methods (e.g., maintaining calm firmness, inductive reasoning, consistent enforcement versus punitive escalation).
Intergenerational Closure and Social Capital: Quantifies the density of social networks connecting parents to their child’s peer network and to other parents within the community.

4. Child Behavioral Competence and Social Skills

Social Interaction and Peer Competence: Captures the child’s prosocial initiation, peer popularity, social acceptance, and affiliation with well-behaved peers.
Executive Functioning and Emotional Self-Regulation: Evaluates reflective cognitive processing (thinking before acting), frustration tolerance, emotional soothing when agitated, and non-authoritarian leadership.
Behavioral Defiance and Conduct Problems: Measures rule violations, stubbornness, resistance to adult authority, and non-compliance.
Physical Aggression: Measures explicit overt conflict behaviors, including interpersonal violence, intentional hitting, fighting, and destructive physical play.

Theoretical Framework

The structural architecture of the ESSP-P is derived from the integration of three foundational social science paradigms: Bioecological Systems Theory, Social Capital Theory, and the Social Development Model / Resilience Framework.

Bioecological Systems Theory

Formulated by Urie Bronfenbrenner, ecological systems theory posits that human development occurs through complex, reciprocal, progressively more advanced interactions between an active developing organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment (proximal processes). The ESSP-P captures multiple levels of this ecological hierarchy:

Microsystems: Direct daily settings including the immediate family household, the peer interaction group, and the classroom.
Mesosystems: The linkage and mutual interaction between two or more microsystems, explicitly represented in the ESSP-P by the home-school connection (parent-teacher alignment, communication, and mutual trust).
Exosystems: Environmental settings that affect the child indirectly by altering the functioning of their microsystems, such as parental employment flexibility and neighborhood community networks.
Macrosystems: Broader socioeconomic, cultural, and ideological patterns reflected through demographic conditions, housing stability, and structural poverty.

Social Capital Theory

The scale incorporates James Coleman’s and Robert Putnam’s formulations of social capital. In Coleman’s framework, educational achievement depends heavily on family social capital (the quality of adult-child interactions and emotional bonding in the home) and community social capital, specifically “intergenerational closure.” Intergenerational closure occurs when parents know the friends of their children and the parents of those friends, creating an overlapping web of shared norms, monitoring, and mutual support. The ESSP-P directly measures these network properties through targeted inquiries regarding parental acquaintanceship with peers and their parents.

The Risk and Resilience Framework

Drawing on the resilience models pioneered by Norman Garmezy, Ann Masten, and Mark Fraser, the ESSP-P treats academic and behavioral adjustment not as predetermined endpoints, but as dynamic outcomes mediated by the balance between environmental stressors (cumulative risk) and compensatory assets (protective mechanisms). By simultaneously measuring exposure to ambient neighborhood trauma alongside positive family routines and emotional warmth, the instrument allows psychometric modeling of protective factors that buffer vulnerable children against academic failure.

Validity

The ESSP-P has undergone rigorous empirical validation across multiple large-scale field studies funded by educational agencies and published in peer-reviewed psychometric literature (e.g., Bowen, Bowen, & Woolley, 2004; Bowen, 2006, 2008; Wegmann, Thompson, & Bowen, 2011).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through sequential exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmed through structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In an extensive validation study by Wegmann, Thompson, and Bowen (2011) evaluating the home environment and behavioral dimensions among a multi-ethnic sample of caregivers (N = 552), CFA corroborated distinct, theoretically aligned latent factors demonstrating clean item-to-factor loading patterns with absence of substantial cross-loadings. Factor loadings for individual items across the behavioral and parenting subscales generally exceeded .60, meeting rigorous psychometric standards for structural stability.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated against established gold-standard clinical measures. The ESSP-P Child Social Competence and Self-Regulation dimensions demonstrated substantial, statistically significant positive correlations with the Social Skills subscale of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (r = .62 to .71, p < .001). Conversely, the ESSP-P Physical Aggression and Conduct Problems scales exhibited strong positive correlations with the Externalizing Problems index of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (r = .68, p < .001) and the Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC). Discriminant validity was substantiated by low or non-significant correlations between distal neighborhood structural characteristics (e.g., residential mobility) and localized, internal child socio-emotional self-regulation skills, demonstrating that the instrument successfully differentiates between environmental context and individual psychological competencies.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Longitudinal investigations demonstrate that baseline ESSP-P parental scores significantly predict critical school outcomes at the conclusion of the academic year. High scores on Parental Academic Socialization and Home Learning Routines reliably forecast higher reading and mathematics standardized achievement test scores, even after controlling for baseline socioeconomic status and parental education levels. Furthermore, elevations in parental reports of Child Aggression and Behavioral Defiance significantly predict future school disciplinary referrals, suspensions, and chronic absenteeism.

Reliability

Extensive psychometric investigations confirm that the subscales comprising the ESSP-P possess high internal consistency reliability, temporal stability, and measurement precision across diverse demographic cohorts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients calculated across independent validation samples demonstrate strong to excellent internal consistency for the primary multi-item scales:

Neighborhood Collective Efficacy (Item 22): α = .87 to .91
Neighborhood Safety and Trust (Item 23): α = .84 to .88
Neighborhood Teen Deviant Norms (Item 24, negative models): α = .88
Neighborhood Teen Positive Norms (Item 24, positive models): α = .82
Active Parent School Involvement (Item 34): α = .78 to .82
Home Academic Socialization (Item 35): α = .83 to .86
Home Structure and Cognitive Activities (Item 36): α = .72 to .76
Child Social Competence and Peer Acceptance (Item 37): α = .85 to .89
Child Self-Regulation and Compliance (Item 38): α = .81 to .85
Child Physical Aggression (Item 39): α = .86 to .92
Parental Warmth and Encouragement (Item 48): α = .84 to .88
Family Cohesion and Mutual Support (Item 49): α = .89 to .93
Sibling Prosocial Behavior (Item 50): α = .80 to .84
Positive Discipline and Calmer Guidance (Item 51): α = .74 to .79

Test-Retest Reliability and Measurement Precision

Stability coefficients evaluated over a two-to-four-week test-retest interval in community samples yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .76 to .89 across the ecological subscales, demonstrating temporal robustness without significant state-dependent fluctuation. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) values across all standardized domain indices remain low, supporting confident clinical interpretation of individual and group profiles.

Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the ESSP-P has been rigorously tested using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with oblique (Promax and Geomin) rotations and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) and maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) to account for categorical and ordinal response distributions.

Measurement Models and Fit Indices

In structural modeling studies reported by Bowen (2006, 2008) and Wegmann et al. (2011), multi-factor ecological measurement models demonstrated exceptional goodness-of-fit to the observed data. For instance, the CFA evaluating the home environment and social behavior structures yielded the following fit parameters:

Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .952 to .974 (surpassing the conventional .95 cutoff for good model fit)
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .948 to .968
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .041 (90% Confidence Interval: .034 – .048), indicating close approximation
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .046 to .053

Factor Loadings

All standardized factor loadings loaded significantly (p < .001) onto their designated conceptual factors:

The Child Physical Aggression latent factor displayed high standardized item loadings ranging between .78 and .91 across items measuring physical fighting, harming others, rough aggression, and intentional hitting.
The Child Social Competence latent construct exhibited strong loadings (.68 to .84) for peer likability, friendliness, social initiation, and peer acceptance.
The Family Cohesion construct exhibited loadings from .71 to .89 for items tapping mutual support in crises, attentive listening, shared laughter, and collaborative problem-solving.
Measurement invariance tests across child sex (boys vs. girls) and caregiver race/ethnicity demonstrated configural, metric, and scalar invariance, proving that the instrument measures the intended latent constructs equivalently across diverse student populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version (ESSP-P) is structured as an ecological survey administered to a child’s primary caregiver. Key structural characteristics include:

Target Respondent: Biological, adoptive, foster, step-parent, grandparent, or legal guardian of an elementary school child (primarily grades 3 through 5; ages 8–11).
Item Count: 54 primary numbered question blocks, encompassing 107 discrete inquiry points including sub-items.
Administration Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes for self-administration (paper-and-pencil or computerized web interface); 35 to 45 minutes when conducted as a structured clinical or oral interview.
Format Modalities: Available as a printed paper booklet, an interactive web assessment, or an assisted structured interview.
Response Formats: Categorical selection for family demographics; 2-point binary indicators (No / Yes); 4-point Likert agreement scales (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree); 4-point Likert frequency scales (Never, Sometimes, Often, Always); 6-point behavioral occurrence scales (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often, Always); and quantitative time/duration brackets.
Scoring and Profiling: Individual item scores within designated subscales are aggregated and converted into standardized T-scores or categorized into functional risk/protective profile tiers (e.g., Promoting Asset, Neutral/Adequate, Significant Risk). Negatively worded items are reverse-coded prior to subscale score calculation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Elementary School Success Profile instrument suite was developed beginning in 2001, with initial parent-version validation studies published between 2004 and 2008, followed by comprehensive CFA modeling published by Wegmann, Thompson, and Bowen in 2011. The instrument is copyrighted by the original authors and the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The complete instrument and technical descriptions have been published for educational, clinical, and non-commercial research use in academic sourcebooks, including Joel Fischer and Kevin J. Corcoran’s Measures for Clinical Practice and Research: A Sourcebook (4th & 5th editions, Oxford University Press). Practitioners and researchers wishing to utilize the computerized assessment scoring platform or large-scale school-wide survey services should consult the School Success Profile project portal (www.schoolsuccessonline.com) or contact Dr. Natasha K. Bowen at The Ohio State University / UNC Chapel Hill for formal licensing, institutional data agreements, and current administrative fees.

References

Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2002). The School Success Profile: A results management approach to assessment and intervention planning. In A. R. Roberts & G. J. Greene (Eds.), Social Workers’ Desk Reference (pp. 787–793). Oxford University Press.
Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., & Bowen, N. K. (2005). The reliability and validity of the School Success Profile. Xlibris.
Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., Powers, J. D., & Glennie, E. J. (2008). The joint effects of neighborhoods, schools, peers, and families on changes in the school success of middle school students. Family Relations, 57(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00518.x
Bowen, N. K. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Elementary School Success Profile for Children. Social Work Research, 30(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/30.1.51
Bowen, N. K. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Elementary School Success Profile for Parents. Paper presented at the Society for Social Work and Research 12th Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
Bowen, N. K. (2008). Cognitive testing and the validity of child-report data from the Elementary School Success Profile. Social Work Research, 32(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/32.1.18
Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2004). Constructing and validating assessment tools for school-based practitioners: The Elementary School Success Profile. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-Based Practice Manual: Research and Outcome Measures in Health and Human Services (pp. 509–517). Oxford University Press.
Bowen, N. K., & Powers, J. D. (2005). Knowledge gaps among school staff and the role of high quality ecological assessments in schools. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(6), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731505276042
Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 510–528). Oxford University Press.
Wegmann, K. M., Thompson, A. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2011). A confirmatory factor analysis of home environment and home social behavior data from the Elementary School Success Profile for Families. Social Work Research, 35(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.117

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:

1

I am the child's:

2

My child is a:

3

My child's race/ethnicity best described as:

4

My child is:

5

Are you currently married?

6

How many people age 17 or younger live in your home (including the child taking the ESSP)?

7

How many people age 18 or older live in your home (including yourself)?

8

How far in school did you go?

9

If there is a second parent or other adult in your child's home who helps take care of the child‚ how far in school did he or she go?

10

Did any of your child's brothers or sisters (Including step- or half-siblings) dr‎op out of school before graduating from high school?

11

How would you describe the financial situation of your household?

12

What is the zip code of your home address? (Write the numbers in the boxes‚ then fill in the right circle below each box.)

13

Do any of the adults (people 18 and Older) in the child’s home currently work for pay?

14

Does your child receive free or reduced price lunches at school?

15

Do you have a way to get to your child's school if needed?

16

Has a doctor suggested your child take medication this year for any of the following reasons? NO‚ YES

17

Do people move in and out of your neighborhood a lot?

18

How many times have you moved in the past year?

19

How much time per week does your child usually spend on neighborhood or community activities run by adults‚ such as team sports‚ the scouts‚ or programs at a community center or park?

20

How big of a problem are drugs in your neighborhood?

21

In the past 30days did any of the following things happen in your neighborhood? No‚ Yes

22

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

23

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

24

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

25

Does your child receive after-school care at the school?

26

Does your child take part in any school clubs or activities that take place after school (such as team sports‚ band‚ drama‚ or science club)? No‚ Yes‚ Not available at the school

27

How often are you afraid that someone will hurt or bother your child at school? Never‚ Sometimes‚ Often‚ Always

28

My child's teacher cares about my child. Strongly disagree‚ Disagree‚ Agree‚ Strongly agree

29

My child's teacher wants my child to do well in school. Strongly disagree‚ Disagree‚ Agree‚ Strongly agree

30

My child's teacher or other school staff would contact me if they had a concern or question about my child's school behavior or progress. Strongly disagree‚ Disagree‚ Agree‚ Strongly agree

31

How much influence do you think parents like You can have in making schools a better place for students to learn and grow?

32

How good of an education do you think your child is getting at his or her school? Poor‚ Fair‚ Good‚ Excellent

33

My work schedule makes it hard for me to be involved at my child's school.

34

How often do you do the following?

35

How often do you do the following?

36

How often do you do the following?

37

For the following statements‚ choose the response that best describes your child within the past 30 days.

38

For the following statements‚ choose the response that best describes your child within the past30 days.

39

For the following statements. Choose the response that best describes your child within the past 30 days.

40

How much time does your child spend on homework on most school nights?

41

How much time does your child spend watching TV on most school nights?

42

How much time does your child spend playing non-educational computer or video games on most school nights?

43

How much time does your child spend using educational programs or doing homework on the computer on most school nights?

44

How much time each week does your child spend on chores (such as helping with meals‚ pets‚ or cleaning)?

45

How many of your child’s friends do you know?

46

How many of the parents of your child's friends do you know?

47

How far in school do you think your child will go?

48

How often do you do the following?

49

How often are the following statements true for your family?

50

How often does your child do the following?

51

How often do you do the following?

52

Has your child experienced the death of a parent‚ brother‚ sister‚ grandparent‚ or other close family member in the last year? No‚ Yes

53

Have you talked to your child about drugs‚ cigarettes‚ or alcohol?

54

Many young people get Involved with alcohol and drugs. How likely do you think it is that your child will do each of the following as he/she gets older?

Rate This Scale

Be the first to rate this

Search Our Site

Cite This Article